Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

TOKYO – Struggling Japan Airlines Corp. has entered talks with Air France-KLM over a capital tie-up, a newspaper said Saturday.

Asia's biggest airline hopes to expand its businesses in Europe via the capital alliance with Air France-KLM, according to the Yomiuri newspaper, Japan's top-selling daily. The report cited no sources and officials at the Japanese airline, known as JAL, could not be reached for comment Saturday.

This would still give JAL a presence internationally as it can do a code share with the other carriers, and may also look for a capital injection by Delta. However, JAL is already a member of the "oneworld" alliance.

A senior JAL official said also that "the merits of belonging to Oneworld are small" in The Daily Yomiuri. The quote was not attributed to anyone specific, though, but suggests that JAL will leave the alliance if/when the deal is signed.

__________________

"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!

The Libyan killer of a British policewoman will never be brought to justice in Britain after a secret deal approved by Jack Straw.
The Foreign Office bowed to Libyan pressure and agreed that Britain would abandon any attempt to try the murderer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, shot outside the Libyan embassy in London 25 years ago.
Anthony Layden, Britain’s former ambassador to Libya, said this weekend he had signed the agreement with the Libyan government three years ago, when Straw was foreign secretary. At the time Britain was negotiating trade deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds with Libya.

what happen to great Britain? Who stole the "Great" form Great Britain?

The Obama supporter had passed away very peacefully while sleeping. R.I.P.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

what happen to great Britain? Who stole the "Great" form Great Britain?

Oil for cash > Oil for Blood

Nothing surprising if you considered the incident of Iraq. In Britain, only a single individual was killed over cash and oil whereas in Iraq, thousands were killed over oil and cash. Its not like the life of a British is superior than those who wore ragged clothes at all. Whether it be Great Britain, the United States, the Middle East or anywhere else, it appears that government bodies tend to value oil and the economy above all else. Its quite sad..

The Obama supporter had passed away very peacefully while sleeping. R.I.P.

Nothing surprising if you considered the incident of Iraq. In Britain, only a single individual was killed over cash and oil whereas in Iraq, thousands were killed over oil and cash. Its not like the life of a British is superior than those who wore ragged clothes at all. Whether it be Great Britain, the United States, the Middle East or anywhere else, it appears that government bodies tend to value oil and the economy above all else. Its quite sad..

what is especially sad is that 100 years ago it was the Empire where the Sun never set. One hundred years later it is country where the sun has already set.

''First, limiting the role of nuclear deterrence in preventing nuclear attack may give the wrong signal to North Korea or other 'rogue states' which may have a different strategic (escalation) calculation. To deter such threats, the credibility of nuclear deterrence would remain important.

''Second, a no-first-use declaration by the United States without a reduction in threat would undermine the security of Japan, or at least it would raise the sense of uncertainty and anxiety over security.

''In light of the reality that China has been rapidly catching up in air and sea power balance...in addition to the rapid modernization of its nuclear capability, no-first-use should be come after or along with the commitment of a tangible nuclear threat reduction in the region,'' the report quoted the Japanese commission member as saying.

Quote:

However, the Democratic Party of Japan, which will soon form the next government, has shown a more positive stance on nuclear disarmament and could influence discussions at the panel, the sources said.

Although the U.S. nuclear umbrella seems to be quite a vital role for the national security of Japan but at the same time, the chances of its actual usage is somewhat questionable. More over, if the United States and Russia don't start abolishing nukes as leaders, the process will probably never start as no other nation are willing to lead the movement.

Honestly.. Just because Japan is protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella does not necessarily mean that North Korea or a possible rogue state won't strike regardlessly and when it actually happens, will the United States exchange a Los Angeles for the sake of an ally who is already nuked? In fact, the action will merely be an exchange of Los Angeles to fire a nuke which is obviously not worth it as that most Americans will probably protest against such action in the first place. If the American government pushes the action forward, it will most likely receive low approval ratings and collapse soon afterwards. Realistically, the U.S. nuclear umbrella is actually useless.

As JAL and American Airlines are members of the global airline alliance Oneworld, JAL is seeking an expansion of code-sharing on international routes, establishment of a joint venture, and AMR's investment in JAL, the sources said.

Cash-strapped JAL is also discussing a plan to receive around 50 billion yen in investment from U.S. carrier Delta Air Lines Inc., American Airlines' rival and one of the world's largest airlines, which belongs to SkyTeam, another global airline alliance.

Honestly.. Just because Japan is protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella does not necessarily mean that North Korea or a possible rogue state won't strike regardlessly and when it actually happens, will the United States exchange a Los Angeles for the sake of an ally who is already nuked? In fact, the action will merely be an exchange of Los Angeles to fire a nuke which is obviously not worth it as that most Americans will probably protest against such action in the first place. If the American government pushes the action forward, it will most likely receive low approval ratings and collapse soon afterwards. Realistically, the U.S. nuclear umbrella is actually useless.

Help me understand this point, Kira. Usually a nuclear "umbrella" means that if someone strikes the protected state, a nuclear reprisal will be targeted at the originator. So if, heaven forbid, the DPRK targeted Tokyo the response would be directed at Pyongyang. While this might seem far-fetched, I don't think there would be a lack of political will or public support for such a reaction by the US. Nor do I think such an exchange would escalate into a general nuclear conflagration.

Retaliation need not be nuclear as well. Modern conventional weapons are pretty darn destructive and don't have any of those nasty long-term side effects like fallout.

I also fail to see how Los Angeles figures into any of this. There certainly isn't any evidence that the DPRK could actually hit targets in the Western Hemisphere despite their recent missile tests. In the longer term there's perhaps a threat from sea-based missiles, but even that seems remote at the moment.

Despite my general abhorrence of nuclear weaponry, I do believe that mutual assured destruction, as horrible as it sounds, proved an effective strategy for deterring attacks by the Soviet Union against the US. I also haven't seen a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. I suppose you could argue that the DPRK has little to lose, but what precisely would it have to gain by initiating a nuclear attack on a target like Tokyo, or even Seoul? Especially if its leaders think, probably rightly, that any such attack would inevitably mean the destruction of North Korea itself?

Help me understand this point, Kira. Usually a nuclear "umbrella" means that if someone strikes the protected state, a nuclear reprisal will be targeted at the originator. So if, heaven forbid, the DPRK targeted Tokyo the response would be directed at Pyongyang. While this might seem far-fetched, I don't think there would be a lack of political will or public support for such a reaction by the US. Nor do I think such an exchange would escalate into a general nuclear conflagration.

Retaliation need not be nuclear as well. Modern conventional weapons are pretty darn destructive and don't have any of those nasty long-term side effects like fallout.

That is exactly the reason why a nuclear deterrence is unnecessary as that there are various forms of counterattacks and it can be conventional weapons, such as long-range missiles as opposed to deploying nuclear warheads.

The fact that North Korea is a third-world nation in which its civilians suffer famine and poverty generally indicates that most people would not support the actions of nuking these people when most likely, the brainwashed individuals are actually being deceived by their dictatorship regime. And nuking Pyongyang is generally the same thing as nuking all these people as opposed to nuking the source of the threat and thus, a nuclear deterrence is unnecessary. All the United States need are long-range missiles, as well as air raids. For that matter, how are those sort of retaliation considered as the nuclear umbrella as nukes are not involved?

Quote:

Despite my general abhorrence of nuclear weaponry, I do believe that mutual assured destruction, as horrible as it sounds, proved an effective strategy for deterring attacks by the Soviet Union against the US. I also haven't seen a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. I suppose you could argue that the DPRK has little to lose, but what precisely would it have to gain by initiating a nuclear attack on a target like Tokyo, or even Seoul? Especially if its leaders think, probably rightly, that any such attack would inevitably mean the destruction of North Korea itself?

Simple.. North Korea like other rogue states do not need to gain anything when they nuke nations. Of course, you can argue that there is a lot for the North Koreans to gain from by nuking Tokyo. North Korea will definitely not nuke Seoul as that their goals are to integrate South Korea into their nation so that they can absorb their economy, as well as resources, not mentioning tons of capable people.

More certainly, the North Korean leaders do not believe nuking any parts of Japan would lead to their own destruction as that it is common knowledge that the United States are only good at bluffs and will most likely do nothing when the time truly comes. The invasion of Iraq was a special exception as that the Bush oil company was on the verge of bankruptcy when the opportunity revealed itself whereas defending Japan from North Korea or any other rogue states will not gain oil or any type of benefits. It is all for goodwill and also to strengthen the meaning of an alliance, as well as the bilateral relationship itself. However, will the United States actually take action after Japan gets nuked by North Korea or any other rogue states remains questionable.

The nuclear umbrella also comes with quite an expense, the sympathy budget which taxpayers have to dish out for the occupying American soldiers whose presence poses as a deterrence against possible invaders but of course, this is just in theory as that North Korea and other rogue states have no intentions to invade in the first place. If they truly seek to do so, the presence of American soldiers would deem to be ineffective at all, just take a look at the recent elections in Afghanistan. Knowing that American soldiers as well as allied troops were protecting the voters yet did the Talibans backed off? The Talibans don't even have nukes..

More certainly, the North Korean leaders do not believe nuking any parts of Japan would lead to their own destruction as that it is common knowledge that the United States are only good at bluffs and will most likely do nothing when the time truly comes. The invasion of Iraq was a special exception as that the Bush oil company was on the verge of bankruptcy when the opportunity revealed itself whereas defending Japan from North Korea or any other rogue states will not gain oil or any type of benefits. It is all for goodwill and also to strengthen the meaning of an alliance, as well as the bilateral relationship itself. However, will the United States actually take action after Japan gets nuked by North Korea or any other rogue states remains questionable.

Bluffing? Really? It's not like there's been a shortage of US military actions. Now you might be able to make a case that the US military is currently stretched too thin to give effective military assistance to Japan in the event of a North Korean strike, but a lack of will? I highly doubt it, especially wiht a nuclear strike. The only way you can piss the American people off more than killing hundreds of thosands of our allies is by killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. Which North Korea would have to do simlutaniously with a strike on Japan, because there are lots of US forces in the area. So in the end, it really doesn't matter if the US would respond to a nuclear attack on Japan by North Korea, becuase the US most certainly respond to a nuclear attack by North Korea on US forces in the region.

Also, Japan is one of the US' largest trading partners. There is an incentive to make sure your trading partners aren't being attacked by a hostile power. It tends to not be good for your economy. Japan might not have oil, but that doesn't mean helping to defend Japan isn't in the interests of the US. even if the US didn't get involved directly, the US would most certainly give Japan a lot of military aid. (Note that this is also why it's unlikely China will come to North Korea's aid if North Korea attacks first. China's trade relations with Japan and the US are worth more than they could ever be with North Korea, even if North Korea somehow turned things around and began to develop their economy.)

Quote:

The nuclear umbrella also comes with quite an expense, the sympathy budget which taxpayers have to dish out for the occupying American soldiers whose presence poses as a deterrence against possible invaders but of course, this is just in theory as that North Korea and other rogue states have no intentions to invade in the first place. If they truly seek to do so, the presence of American soldiers would deem to be ineffective at all, just take a look at the recent elections in Afghanistan. Knowing that American soldiers as well as allied troops were protecting the voters yet did the Talibans backed off? The Talibans don't even have nukes..

The nuclear umbrella doesn't really cost any more than maintaining a nuclear deterrent for the US alone. It's not an object, it's a policy. If someone nukes an ally we treat it like they nuked the US. It isn't even like the US needs to forward deploy the nukes, the US is more than capable of hitting North Korea from bases in the US. A B-2 or even a B-52 armed with long range nuclear tipped cruise missiles could easily get there from the continential US with just some airborn refueling. The expensive part is the conventional deterrent which does need to be forward deployed, IE the troops stationed in South Korea and the fighters based on Okinawa.

Also your comparison to soldiers in Afganistan protecting civilians not deterring the Taliban there isn't the same thing at all. I shouldn't have to explain why a "we nuke you if you nuke our allies" policy is a bit different than troops on the ground conducting peacekeeping and COIN operations.

The U.S. official faced large hurdles this week, with all sides far apart on the key issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The Palestinians say there must be some progress on the settlement issue before any meeting takes place.

Speaking on Palestinian radio, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said there will be no compromises from their side on their demand for Israel to freeze settlement activity.

He said there is no middle solution on the settlement issue. He said Israel must stop all settlement activity, including construction to accommodate natural growth. He said Israel would then have to implement those agreements. Mr. Erekat said that would be the way to enter negotiations.

Washington also wants a settlement freeze.

It appears that the United States are going to work hard and push for a peaceful resolution in the Middle East with regards to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Hopefully, things will go in the right direction..

The biggest and most secretive gathering of ships in maritime history lies at anchor east of Singapore. Never before photographed, it is bigger than the U.S. and British navies combined but has no crew, no cargo and no destination - and is why your Christmas stocking may be on the light side this year.

That number, estimated at 12% of the world's container ships, is amazing. Given that it's now mid September, orders for Christmas are already being finalized - if not so - and should be on their way. If this many ships are idle, either there have been way too many built (always possible) or the shipments' number have shrank - and not yet improved. Hopefully, these get back into business soon.

__________________

"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!

It seems that this Christmas, presents may be fewer and/or smaller than previous years'...

Large number of merchant ships idle near South Malaysia
That number, estimated at 12% of the world's container ships, is amazing. Given that it's now mid September, orders for Christmas are already being finalized - if not so - and should be on their way. If this many ships are idle, either there have been way too many built (always possible) or the shipments' number have shrank - and not yet improved. Hopefully, these get back into business soon.

The last picture seems pretty fake. I pass by the harbors to work everyday and the ports don't seem so empty.

Why don't we turn these ships into floating farms, or install wave-motion cannons and ion thrusters for space journeys?

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

The spokesman said Jarrett heard the Dalai Lama's ideas about how Tibetan identity can be preserved, and his commitment to dialogue with China. He said the Tibetan spiritual leader repeated his position that he does not seek independence for Tibet.

Regardless of the the Dalai Lama claims, China accuses the Nobel Peace Prized winner as the leader of the riots, terrorism and mass movements awhile back. On the contrary, I am not surprised at all. After this event, I am expecting that China will most likely do a protest against both the American embassy and also the Indian embassy, not to mention that some soldiers had recently crossed Indian borders and committed vandalism while anti-Obama movements seem to be on the rise. Its such a pity that this sort of thing is happening in the 21st century.

JAL stock soared almost 8 percent to 176 yen on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, beating a sharp slump in the overall market. The Nikkei 225 stock average tumbled 2.3 percent to 10,202.06 as the dollar fell to a seven-month low against the yen.

This seems to be a good thing as that wealthy businessmen are seeing the alliance of Japan Airlines and American airlines as positive, even though it is really the American airlines lending aid as opposed to allying.